SR-400-002-06 (7)
.
.
R-~
SEP 2 6 1989
CA:RMM:l1d557/hpc
city council Meeting 9-26-89
ytlC- 002-e;J6
Santa Monica, Cal1fornia
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Implementing the Comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance by Amending the Interim
Districting Map
At its meeting on September 12, 1989, the City council
introduced for first reading an ordinance implementing the
Comprehensive Land Use and zoning Ordinance by amending the
interim Districting Map. The ordinance is now presented to the
city Council for adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended:
1. That in connection with the adoption of the
accompanying ordinance, the city council finds that it is
consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and that
the public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the ordinance for the following reasons:
(a) The Ocean Park area is a unique neighborhood with
special characteristics attributable to its coastal location and
historic architectural diversity.
(b) There is continuing and increasing community concern
about the loss of the unique and special character of the Ocean
F-B
SEP 2 6 1989
- 1 -
.
.
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared inval id or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ \lyl..f ~-......-O-
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 3 -
.
.
Park neighborhood due to new development and the existence of
planning and zoning regulations which may no longer adequately
promote the City's goals for the Ocean Park area.
(c) Significant parking deficiencies in the Ocean Park
area already exist as evidenced by the city Council's recent
creation of several preferential parking zones in the area.
(d) A number of properties in the Ocean Park area are
under-developed in relation to the City's existing allowable
height and density limits.
(e) The June, 1989, Final Environmental Impact Report on
the Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives demonstrates that full
development buildout under existing zoning standards would have
significant impacts upon intersections in the area.
(f) Decreased densit1es and new development standards
proposed for the Ocean Park neighborhood will help to preserve
the unique character of the area, provide additional
opportunities for affordable housing, and minimize impacts upon
the street system.
2. That the accompanying ordinance be adopted.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
- 2 -
.
.
CA:RMM:LLD555jhpc
City council Meeting 9-26-89
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IMPLEMENTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCE
BY AMENDING THE INTERIM DISTRICT!NG MAP
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance Number 1452
(CCS) establishing a Comprehensive Land Use and zoning Ordinance:
and
WHEREAS, the city Council has adopted Ordinance Number 1454
(CCS) establishing an interim Official Districting Map pending
comprehensive revision of the Official Districting Map; and
WHEREAS, the city council has amended the Comprehensive
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance by adding the following new
districts that are not contained in the interim Official
Districting Map of the City: OP-l, OP-Duplex, OP-2, OP-3, and
OP-4: and
WHEREAS, in order to implement the amendments to the
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance it is necessary to
designate properties subject to the new district classifications
pending adoption of a new Districting Map for the City: and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary to ensure that the
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance is consistent with
the General Plan~ and
- 1 -
.
. .
.
.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's constitutional authority as
a charter city, the City Council waives any procedural
requirement that normally would apply to changes to the
Districting Map of the city; and
WHEREAS, the ci ty Council finds that this Ordinance is
necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare so
that development will be consistent with the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2 of Ordinance Number 1454 (CCS) is
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2. Pending adoption of a
new Official Districting Map of the City,
the Official Districting Map of the City
in effect on July 26, 1988, is revised as
set forth in Exhibit "A.II
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
- 2 -
.
VtJt),- ooz --Ob
CjED:CPD:
INFORMATION: September 19, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Additional Exhibits for September 19, 1989 City council
staff Report Concerning Ocean Park Rezoning
Attached for inclusion with the September 19, 1989 City council
staff report concerning the proposed Ocean Park Rezoning Plan are
the following exhibits:
"
1) Exhibit "Nil: This should replace the version of Exhibit "Nil
provided with the staff report. Please note that two additional
copies of this exhibit are being provided: one has been marked
to show the changes to the text of the current Zoning Ordinance,
while the other has no markings.
2) Exhibit "011: An ordinance to amend the Interim Districting
Maps to implement the proposed Ocean Park zone districts.
3) Exhibit nTn: A resolution to certify the Final ErR on the
proposed Ocean Park Rezoning Plan.
w/OPccinfo
- 1 -
~.~
SEP 1 ~1989
C/ED:PC:PC:SF:JR:qw
council Meeting: September 19,1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation of the Planning Commission to Adopt
the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan; Introduction and
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Article IX,
Chapter I of the Municipal Code; and, Introduction and
First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Interim
Districting Map
INTRODUCTION
Approximately two years ago, in response to concerns raised by
residents in the Ocean Park neighborhood, the City Council
directed staff to prepare a comprehensive study and plan to
rezone the area.
After an extensive pUblic participation
process, staff recently presented the alternatives and preferred
plan at a public hearing before the Planning Commission (please
see June 28 and July 12, 1989 Planning Commission staff reports,
Exhibits P and Q).
The Planning commission deliberated on the
plan and formulated its final recommendation to the city Council,
which is described in this report.
Essentially, the Planning
Commission supported the staff recommendation, with minor
changes.
staff believes that the recommended plan achieves the goal of
preserving the existing character of Ocean Park while also
providing sufficient opportunities for additional market-rate and
affordable housing.
P-R
SEP 1 9 1989
- 1 -
This report discusses the project history, the public
participation process, the alternatives analysis, pUblic comments
on the Draft Alternatives and Environmental Impact Report, and
the recommended plan.
The report recommends that the city council conduct a public
hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning Ordinance and
Interim Districting Map and introduce for first reading an
ordinance to implement the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan as outlined
in this staff report.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1987, residents in the Ocean Park neighborhood
submitted a letter to the Planning Director and Planning
Commission outlining a proposal to downzone Ocean Park (see
Exhibit A). concerned about increased development that, in their
view, clashed with the traditional character of Ocean Park, they
proposed to reduce densities uniformly to a minimum of 2000
square feet per unit (hence, "R-2000"), reduce building heights
to 27 feet, apply a maximum parcel coverage of 50%, and allow
density bonuses of 50% for low-income projects. Their proposal
was intended to "preserve the present hous ing stock in Ocean
Park, maintaining a balance of low, moderate, and market-rate
housing", and respond to the "unique topography, narrow streets,
irregular traffic circulation patterns, and substandard
infrastructure" in Ocean Park.
In response to this proposal, the city Council on May 12, 1987
requested that staff prepare background information for a public
- 2 -
hearing on zoning in Ocean Park, scheduled for July 7, 1987. The
staff report for this hearing (see Exhibit B) analyzed existing
buildout, housing conditions, demographics, historic data, and
proposed development in Ocean Park. After hearing public comment
on this issue, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
interim zoning ordinance (see Exhibit C) for Ocean Park pending
the completion of a "comprehensive study of the Ocean Park area
which may result in review and revision of the planning and
zoning regulations that govern development in the Ocean Park
area.1t (See Transcript of July 7, 1987 hearing, Exhibit D.)
The findings of the interim ordinance cited community concern
about the loss of the unique and special character of Ocean Park,
increased development, parking problems, and potential
infrastructure limitations as reasons for the study. The interim
ordinance called for R-2 standards throughout Ocean Park, with
modified height standards (27 I I and up to 35 I with a pitched
roof), an exemption from the interim standards for low- and
moderate-income projects, and R-2R zoning applied to the area of
substandard lots with alleys in the southeast corner of Ocean
Park (see Summary of Interim Ordinance and maps, Exhibit E).
The City Council adopted the interim ordinance on september 8,
1987. In October, 19B7, the Planning commission approved the
-work program, and by early 1988, the consulting firm of Sedway
Cooke Associates had been retained to prepare the rezoning study
and plan.
- 3 -
The scope of work for this project included: a com.prehensive
analysis of existing land use, housing, design, and circulation;
three community workshops to identify community concerns about
zoning, develop goals, and generate specific standards to achieve
those goals; an analysis of alternative rezoning proposals for
Ocean Park, including public review of these alternatives; and,
public hearings on a proposed rezoning plan.
THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
As planned, three community workshops were held in May, August,
and October of 1988. The purpose and results of each of these
workshops are summarized in Exhibit Fl. Copies of agendas,
handouts, worksheets, and notes used in these workshops are
contained in Appendix E of the Final ErR.
There was general consensus concerning many issues at these
public workshops. For example, most participants agreed that
building heights should be limited to between 25 I and 27' in
order to preserve views; most thought per-unit open space
requirements were desirable; most thought front yard setbacks
should be flexible depending upon prevailing setbacks on any
given block: and, most people opposed allowing lot consolidation.
However, while there was general consensus around a range of
densities for Ocean Park, there was disagreem.ent about whether
Ocean Park should have one uniform zone district or multiple
zones. There was also disagreement about the desirability of
density bonuses for affordable housing.
- 4 -
Documentation of issues raised by the community at the first
public workshop, as well as a "snapshot" of existing conditions
in Ocean Park, are contained in Exhibit F2, Issues and Existing
Conditions Report, July, 1988.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Based upon the information gathered at the public workshops I
staff and the consultant developed three alternative rezoning
plans for Ocean Park. These alternatives are fully describeq in
the Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives Report (Exhibit G) that was
released for public review on April 1, 1989 and fully analyzed in
the Draft Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives Environmental Impact
Report released on the same date. (Copies of both documents have
been sent previously to City councilmembers.)
The three alternatives presented in the Alternatives Report
propose almost identical development standards--i.e., recommended
building height, lot coverage, setbacks, architectural design
guidelines, and open space requirements--with the exception of
zone district boundaries. The effective difference between the
alternatives is in the total number of potential housing units
that may be built in Ocean Park.
In accordance with State law, the Environmental Impact Report
assesses worst case/best case zoning options. These options
include a drastic, uniform downzoning to R-l standards as well as
the "no project" option--maintenance of existing R-2, R-3, and
R-4 zone districts. The al ternatives presented in the
Alternatives Report, on the other hand, present a narrower range
- 5 -
of options that staff believes to be more realistic for Ocean
Park.
since the release of the original Rezoning Alternatives report, a
fourth alternative, Alternative nOli, has been prepared. This is
the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission and
supported by staff.
Maps of the four rezoning alternatives are shown in Figures 1, 2,
3, and 4, and will be enlarged for purposes of public
presentation at the September 19th hearing. The proposed
rezoning affects only those areas that have been historicallY
zoned for residential use.
Please note that on all the alternatives the parcel on Bay Street
between Nielson Way and Ocean Avenue, which was inadvertently
designated "C4" on all the alternatives, has been changed to
OP-4.
Alternative "A"
Alternative "A", shown in Figure I, calls for the highest
densities. It shows a density of 2000 square feet per unit
(OP-2) in the eastern third of Ocean Park (from the parcels on
the west side of sixth street north of Ocean Park and from
Highland Avenue on the south side of Ocean Park), except for a
single-family zone (OP-l) including Ozone, Navy, and Marine
streets in the southeast corner of Ocean Park; a density of 1500
square feet per unit between the back of all the parcels on the
east side of Second street to Fifth street north of Ocean Park
- 6 -
?; >- @
E CD CD <G
<G n n ~
LL - 2 > >-
<.9 I :::J :::J >- 0 ~ >-
.!? :::!: E :::!: ~ CD
Z :::J ~ CII '0 '"
CII ;= c: c: '0 :x:
c u L:. > :::J C
z. (f.j 0 CD ~ 0 -:: 0 ~
...I :::!: :::J a:
0<( :x: III m 0 0
~ '" IL al 0
N. ~~ ~ .x_ u -- Z -
~:! .x_ 008
~CD ~<ll c G; 0 2-0 0
0..- "'- Ill- III ~ -:) w
~W c IL- IL- IL- ...I '" --l ~O ::l
c c '" =...
0:> c. c'" c ~- 0<(
",u c'" c'" ,g -0 0 ...c a:I~ ~
rl~ - "'U ",'0 CD:!:! CI)- - .. 0
"'- Go;; 0=
n.:t{ 0: Go;; ...... .c 1= ;= CI) <(a:z 0
00: 0.. u... OlD :::J -'" UO l 00& a...o~ 5
1';:' z Oa: 00: 00: a... -- ID _..0
00 Z 00<(
p::: Z a: zm;!: ~
~<( w ... (II M . oo~1 <(I~ g
~w '<l' ,
H 0 !::i I I I I . wc.9l) ~
a.. a.. a.. a.. or:( ~
~ 0 <( 0 0 0 0 . ~ Ow>- ~
. ~ Oz~ ~
\ \ )1
'- !i 1:1 I~I
.~~fl ' [I' i iil ~: 1,1 I
1 s~.Jli II II r i. j1 l:j ;111 ::! :' ,r!, , I \
D\'I!1l'"I~:-- __- II i,111 i i!~u UL
~ ~i _ ~rnil ,r----, ~ r
n ~T" J- I., I ~t-=l ~;I I~
l.J ,--' illrl~IJ I I _III i ~i= rr-,E-fi I~ '-~ -- .......1
~, i~~ '._";J, nJi, ~ ,cff, d' I iT) ;11_ 1=El'i::: 10 '" ! WI ~)
N, t Ill! TIT! : : ~i:~ I d '1 ~ ~: I i; 1 ;1: =- '!-11----==--==j ~' rI (> I
a: ~' rnn:r:m ~ ~ - ~!l~ I ", II" '~-I.l ~===\ e=- ~'=: r~ ,.",/~:,(
[ \ 1~,T!1~~BsI~l'illlilil,n\'-j:J~!G:E"'!IT: ;~
J' l~ L~illfill' t I ; I ~ g ; i~~ ,1M; i=l f=J~ r; ~ q-' .
~ ~II- _ _ _ ! -f- \- Ie=. '" I
= h __I'" r- T ~lJjJ~ - 1-~!'I:': ~:I !.~ ! ! I i~1 fF=] tL! i I~ a.
~ ,-- U 'j; I E -~ ~LLLilj;] '----~ l=--L-J LJ = 0\
l ' Hi! m ~ -I~ ~ I!:; g8 M ~--~[~ =- ~ - II
~~ ,'.Lilli! ~ ~ = =- - 13 F=V~ =- ~
_ r \.... /!~t - - - - =-. ~-' - l- ~ - =
- h\~ ~ 1~8T ~-L;"" -it .'-' n= =;1~~~i'L'-"I( ~I - ~.
U ~ :-_ ~1~~ i [-f ILL IliC-1-- EfI ~ ~ IJTlI" I
. D · .= -~- ~'. 'c-_ =r[j~ [C{J · roE 'ilrn Ii' Ii ---I
h ~ j 1fT~11. - If '~9 I=t~ I ~f1l€C I~ -_J~t "
~ IJ t ~.II Ill. ~":: cL m =' --.1 \:(~! rtJl " [Illl!!Jll..~i ii
~ ~ u ~l~~~~fJ ~ ~ ff\ fl ~ ~'~ I ~1~~' I
~D C;LJ=J=r~ [:E~r ,- .~~:. ~!: ~
~ I 1\ \ \ \ \lIE t:= ~ _~ m n - '.:; lIT 7 :: '.: ::
_ H~~: III::~I~T~ '~ 1[' _ l,jll".!! 11 H/d~: ~
~ J, ". IT D.~t fTTlll1l31 '1111J111111M11~~ ~ :
-fil frl'~fJ 111111~r;\ ~ilil ~ 11I1?lft~H~ I
Boulevard and a line following the back side of the parcels
fronting onto sixth streets; a density of 1250 square feet per
unit along Pico Boulevard roughly between Fourth and sixth
streets and along the west side of Neilson Way between Ocean Park
Boulevard and Barnard Way, and along Neilson Way between Bay and
Strand Streets. Alternative "A" also shows a small OP-3 district
bounded by Neilson Way, Ocean Avenue, Strand street, and the rear
side of the parcels along the west side of Hollister Avenue.
All of the alternatives leave intact the existing R-2R district
between Neilson Way and Ocean Avenue.
Essentially, Alternative nAil represents a "stepping down" from
existing, underlying densities in Ocean Park. Generally
speaking, areas that are zoned R-3 (1250 SF/unit) are stepped
down to OP-3 (1500 SF); areas that are zoned R-2 (1500 SF/unit)
are stepped down to OP-2 (2000 SF/unit); and areas that are zoned
R-4 (900 SF/unit) are stepped down to OP-4 (1250 square feet per
unit) . The only exception to this is the recommended
single-family district in the southeast corner of Ocean Park.
By stepping down densities in each zone, Alternative "A" attempts
to treat all property owners equally by requiring roughly
proportional density reductions in all districts.
Alternative "B"
Alternative IIB", shown in Figure 2, calls for many of the same
zone district boundaries as Alternative "A", with one major
difference: that the OP-J district is substantially smaller.
- 7 -
o
w
o _
ZWa:l
W f- =
~o
~a::
Of-
OW
0J W 0
ILl a:: CD
p::: u.. z
~ u..-
8 ~ b
r>.. W N
>.
E
III
LI..
I
l!>
a.
c
rn
.x
.'ii
~ a... =
> cli
H _ a:J"'O
E-< '0 '" ..
.0: a> o~
Z 00
0:: r-I
ILl:> ...
E-< a> I
I-=i H a..
0:<: - 0
.!?
a.
:::J
:::e
;=
o
...I
....
.]!
ILc
clll
11I'0
CD..
UIII
00:
(\l
I
a..
o
E
:::J
'0
'"
:::!:
-"'-
~aI
"'-
n.-
c
c"
1Il~
w..
u'"
00:
M
I
a..
o
.!!!
n
>-
~
IZI
>
o
CII
c
:><
Q;
n.
>-
~
III
1:l
c
:::J
o
[0
~0 :I:
o t-
o 0:
~ 0 0
'" 008 Z 0
~ ~ ~ ~O :::
l5 ~ a:I~ ~
'" ~ 005 CI) <(o:z ~
! ~ a..Oi ::l
6 15 ooc zmii ~
I <(I" 8
001 W(9~ ~
o OW>- ~
Oz51l:
:::J
:::E
>-
m
>-
~
'"
'0
c:
:::J
o
[0
~
-
-
~"U
=.
....c
-'"
0:::;;
o
:s!.c
0<(
~
'"
>
o
.c
CII
J:
.x_
;;~
a...c
r:::'"
1Il~
CD'"
uw
oa:
...
1:l
C
III
-'
ii:i
ID
~-
-u
CI)-
1'::-
-'"
00
'"
o
;=
G>
Z
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
u
..c
:::J
n.
\ \ -.JI
.2l.. ~""-:I II I!~I" j. il !'I :1 " 'I .
, ~ ~~ II I II ',; ! j,1 II 'I. : i;i II :1 1 II I : I. 'LJ ! J L
W\~!I,'.III.':I~~/I'T7Tm1J~~ . r-=~-~' L-J. .r-I~I
iii 1;1; I -. ~ It==i ~1---1 .~ 1
~ ~ i ';~'!I!!I"" ~..'rT II ~ -O~~:=IIL..r-~-Ch! ~ L~ -- I
U .,... ,1.,1, J!II,)!i"- . ;. ".~~"- ~Ilr- [:]~ WJ \~\
U t '.IlIi, .i~r'!lili J (:r~61f'i :#~! [I-It! ~ m: ! :,== ;:-~ ~' I ; 11 1.~ ;
r ~I~ 'rr-T- ~~ · ',I : il -.rI:~:::::: II i)
~~ ~ li~,::IT-LLLuU:;I.~;:! !II.:,I,'~=- i ._.,- s~~ ._ "'/t(('~ ~ - -
a: ~ 1s.-i;-~tf~ - rTmTfl. i:. _ 1: r'!~I~.i!J~.;lil, =-k---~~'l~- ~ Ir~ :'1 i\
LJ 1,1i i:...LillL.EJ;=] 1: ii;:I,!I~-Jl tcLJ L1'. ',iL
, LS'ri-[ffij rnrrrJ- llliJ.L~ ~ c ~ I t o:t
... \ UJJJl1 O:JF~ :.TIT:: c~!::::j==t=F ~ ~ I: I
--J ~~:~~! i ti~iill~ ~ '!~~J~ ~~~~t) - ~ 1l! _ ,"
\. 11;11---:-- fJ't ~~.~._J ~_.i.- ,~,ITrr!lrrmmmlll' II .
J \ ~.!- - j_~_ ! -~_ ~ ~~ t~.~2L_=t= F-I.:-c] c...\I : J f.ll1TTTIlrr~1 :: !
r ---1 - - :.:::;::jt= -1=-1 I-=.i- l:=[-- _ ~ ~ H -. I I .
D ' r~' ~= ~ ~ ~~ ~!~J ~!:- cc~:>_ - t ~ R !, ~
- D - l-J-' tlTl ~~~ ---- m;; t= ~ =-- - ~ - I 1\' _
= . 11- I Ct :L g =1 ~- ~- - ~ ,1111 Iii v,
= q~r1l~.: < ~ =:i.s :.'--= HW * \ ~ ill I o;~;~'/"
c;" = J ;,: I fl'j ui; l..~ _:3~ ~=~:I i,[[ijF "f ~ ~IJJ.W'
a: ~ I gqffil _ ~~ t~~~!~I'.~ :- ;';jl
= L1 ~~,\ lli\~ c:~~~ If ~ trt-I .~- ~":' ~.:JI
= n .,~\~~ ~ ~' H~-~ 8~~ 11 I~~~!
- IiJi \JJ.IWJw # = - 11I1"':_ [ll7
= ,-.I 1 \ \ IE -7~ == r--- m 11L lL - ro
II i 1111 !:-l-C I ~ [ ~ II ~ I H h-n ~ - ,- ~ (.II
: ----;;:. -1.1t- 1 II f-- I!!!!! ~IT '-;0 \.'- Ill! II IIII 1. ~ ~fJ I
H "'I..! .,..,....0.11I.. IIHlllI_-1 -., ,.~ II
- _ L '- .111 j r P 11111111 ~il flBiUJ ~ IHlJIL~ i _ __
-ff\ III WF i\ \ <c 7/\ Gnr-
'l7
I
a..
o
01(
The OP-3 district straddles Fourth street and jogs to include
portions of Bay street, Bicknell Avenue, and Pacific street west
of Fourth street and portions of Hill street and Raymond Avenue
east of Fourth street.
Rather than reflect existing zoning patterns, Alternative "Bit
downzones Ocean Park in an effort to reflect and preserve
existing built densities and allow for only limited density
increases. More specifically, the OP-3 district encompasses
blocks which are built out by at least 75% to densities of at
least 1500 square feet per unit; the OP-4 district encompasses
areas that are already built out to densities equal to or greater
than 1250 SF/unit, and in some cases, as in the case of the Ocean
Towers, much greater.
The areas proposed for OP-2 zoning contain a wide mix of
densities, including many parcels with only one or two existing
units. The purpose of the OP-2 designation is to preserve the
substantially low-density character of these areas. Conversely,
the purpose of the OP-3 and OP-4 districts is to provide for
appropriate densities upon natural recycling of aging properties,
so as to minimize the loss of housing units that would otherwise
occur over time.
The boundaries of the OP-3 district in the version of Alternative
"B" included in this staff report differ in two minor ways from
the boundaries presented in the April 1989 Alternatives report.
One difference is that all the parcels abutting the east side of
Third Street between Hill and the Southern City boundary have
- 8 -
been designated OP-3 rather than OP-2. The other difference is
that the parcels abutting the west side of sixth street between
Ocean Park Boulevard and Raymond Avenue have been designated OP-2
rather than OP-3.
Alternative "c"
Under Alternative "C" f shown in Figure 3, most of Ocean Park
would be uniformly downzoned to a density of 2000 square feet per
unit (OP-2) . The OP-2 district generally includes the
residential areas south of pico Boulevard, west of Lincoln
Boulevard, north of the City boundary, and east of Main street,
with the exception of the small area of substandard lots with
alleys along Navy and Ozone streets which are zoned for duplex
units. The remainder of the zone districts west of Neilson Way
and abutting pico Boulevard that are proposed under this
alternative are identical to those proposed in Alternatives "A"
and "B".
Of all the alternatives, Alternative "e" most closely resembles
the original proposal submitted by Ocean Park residents in
February of 1987. Alternative "C" departs from that original
proposal in that it allows higher densities between Neilson Way
and Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way, and along pico Boulevard. For the
most part, however, Alternative "C" honors the idea that Ocean
Park is one community and that equal densities throughout most of
the community reinforce this unity.
- 9 -
>- ~
CD II> '"
n n ~ >-
=: 2 >
>- 0 :ii ,...
:::J :::J .!! :ii
l'J '" ::E ::E u 1:
GO ~ 0> C U
Z CD C :::J c: I-
a. ~ s::. > a:
,. 01 0 3< 0 :::J 0
Z 0 :ii aJ 0 0
C ...I J: m z
O. .. a... - 008 0
NP ~ ...: ~- '0 .2 - ~ooJ UI
:ii~ ~~ ~.. c '; ~ .2u --l ~o ::l
CD- CD
Q..- IL- IL- ...I .. '" ~.. <( a:Ic1 ~
::-.:::W I: c: I: ~- is 0I>.c 0
c. c'" c'" .2 -0 - .. CI) <t:a:z ~
("ja::> ...'0 ",'0 "'~ f/}- 0=
"'";;; ...- "'.. D 1= ;= 0 Lo& (Log ~
(t~ 0", 0: 0'" ::J :::.!! .., :E.o
Oa: Oa: Oa: Q.. 00 Z 0<( zm~ ~
r::::l Z
p::: Z a: OJ <(Ie 8
~<( ... C\I o:t . ~ w('J~ ~
~ww I I I . ~ , 0 ow~ ~
H 0 !::i a.. a.. a.. c( . Oz~ ~
.'LIO< 0 0 0 ~ . ~
\ "-- I~ jl I~l II I-I II
-,-~ ~~! Iii ,] ,: 1:, ij 1:11 11;1 i; i~! !i IiI ;1 II 'I U I
~,~ L:.! iI ~j II ,I U UL
U\~!dB ='mi=1 I. =---. II ~
~ " " Tn"""- - - = - _ - .;:=....j 1;11 - -tC, .
lJ I lL I - II ~: ~ ~ r I 'h ~ --
N ,~~,~! ,; ',:' ~i~i:!0ifrlft -"3-(,J oW] :I~> ~h
I:: U -I I I, I ITf, b~- ~ I, " 4, fj I ~ =t= ~ = _ ..",~J((..
a: ~,~ ~i-LT-~ i WI. ill; I,: ~..J! r=J~!I~gl.llj'~~i+l~}J~~=f= ~=t=[t; == I!G~~ 'i'li~
l~1 Tn \ i ", L- 11, 1'! I I' 't- - ' t-- -,-: .:::=. - J
,~-- - ,.,..,"': " l~ ...L..L- '- ~ - -- I
I ~ ~ I' ~'i~ [ITITrf'J;O ~~j~ i,~~L~ 1- ~ - = I ~
., \ : !ll1fT ,~~ II; 11, I ~ =- ~ I II
:j -1 l ~I rr1! UlJJ~Sl :~~,; IT I, ! i ! II~ ~ ~- _: a.
_ lJ.\ Ill: ,,'':~ j' ~~t;] ~ F-=- li r= 0
'II t I ! '~'T II,T'1 R.- - t----l; JI ~ f- rl
I - '111,1, ,~,! ~" '"Sj[]- l=1l.,iL:"" -t- Il
,~. 'P" '+I'! i I I,"! ,I ! ,I 'I' , , ! I I =---::j t::=.+-=- -= = =
-9f~i'lli,l.i~'1 i 1[, ~:::-_ (>~ 'f1-.= c,- --;
- _ C ~il:!' L~.J:___:'~_i...)b....~'~\.;_'1 ~ ~ ~iL~~~t:Ji I
D\ 1:lrl~~L~11 Ilf ~~\i~~E~~ m~ - _
1 -liQ=. ~k - - I !~ 5JJ _
J . l~ it. ~ ~~ T,~I\l~ ~l
~, ~,~ ~c CI I =q f 1: ~ =- ill!] ~
- J t II t - ~ L atE! I ~w - m',; 7W:
~ -= U p i;~j~t1I]l t!J II rlr ~ ~~"
II: :~ ,; I L-... ~~ ~~ ~.~bF'\J ~ ~, '~1IBl
==~ \ .~ l' ffi\\l\~ H9 Ul ~ ~~ El ~. I~
= ~ \ JIDi\1ffiffi~ ~~ 1]- [Jd lTI J1": 11 ~ 1 ~ I
= 1-1 II ~\~ ~~~I - 0IEl flu-, ~i ~ [re,
I I llllllf!' I~[l - LJ=l h-nfj ~1I11 / /
\:-1 II 1111-- !!!!!~ ~r=- ~ ~
\ . T 1.... ~ ' If"'t'oq ·
-i1I \~ \~ ..1 I 1 ~' ~ in t!3nr, .
Alternative "D"
Alternative "D" (shown in Figure 4), the alternative recommended
by staff and the Planning Commission, is nearly identical to
Alternative "B" as presented in this report except for the
following: 1) The boundaries of the proposed OP-l single family
district are extended north by a half-block to include parcels on
the north side of Marine street; 2) The parcels abutting both
sides of Hollister Avenue between Ocean Avenue and Nielson Way
are designated OP-2 rather than OP-3.
In recommending adoption of Alternative "0", the Planning
Commission essentially supported the staff recommendation and
reasons behind it. The argument by staff to support Alternative
"0" is outlined in the next section.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN
staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of
Alternative "0". Alternative "0" balances two important goals:
to preserve the low-densi ty character in Ocean Park where it
exists, and to preserve a greater portion of the existing higher
density housing stock where it predominates (i.e., in the
proposed OP-4 and OP-3 districts). Alternative "A" would not
adequately preserve the low-scale, lOW-density character along
Second and Third streets. Conversely, Al ternati ve "c" would
result, over the long run, in recycling of higher density
- 10 -
'<J'
CJ
Z
Z
o
. N
00
wW
>0
-z
I--UJCI)
<(~I-
Z~O
ffioa:
1-01-
....JUJ~
:<0:0
~
~
::J
C9
H
rz..
"
\ c"'-.:: _~,..-;; ;' '<[
, -- 1< .I if.
i. I
, \
1
\ \;,,-
0, ~
, ~
, "
;
~-l
N
I
a:
I
n.
o
~
E
OJ
U.
I
0>
Cl
C
Ci5
cD
Q.
"3
~
~
o
-'
.><:
:ii~
~c
cO>
m'O
CD 0;
t}<II
Ocr:
.x
mD;
<l..=
c
c<l>
<0'0
<11-
0'"
or1.
C\I
1
Q..
o
E
.2
'0
III
:::!:
.:<:-
....<CI
11I-
l1..-
c
c"
1'1I'0
..0;
0",
Oa:
M
I
D-
O
.!!!
c.
>.
'"
~
>
o
-
:::J
::e
>-
m
<D
>
o
Ol
c:
:t
'"
a..
~
Ol
l:
..
"
c:
'"
...I
o
..0
::>
D..
i'
0>
~-
-0
rn-
.::;
-..
OCi
.><:-
~a1
al-
a...-
c
C.
"'~
Go...
00>
Ocr:
'<l'
I
n.
o
<
~ . i
I!
! !
>.
aI
'0
c:
::>
o
lD
:@~
o
009 Z
-:l~
I :::1
I 0
o
0'
::::'::::0 ::l
a:.I;j ~
~a:~ g
........0,. ~
zm~ ~
<(Ie 8
w0:' ~
0-0",
W,..if
OZ~ ~
>-
;;;
U
C
:::J
o
lD
"'"
~
.2
o
-
()
-"0
::;..,
"'~
-<II
0""
,,0
_.0
0<(
c:
~ a;
0> ~
a.!!l
6 0
~
'"
o
;=
<l>
Z
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
=
--.J=
=
-'I' jir~jlill
<;~!k
2,:la,iij,
w _~
'~I. il "=.'
" "r'::
, -,
, -,
--,
; I :-.
.
.
.
buildings to a much lower density, thereby resulting in a loss of
housing stock.
As indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, Alternative "An
would allow as many as 740 new units in Ocean Park; Alternative
"B", roughly 490 new units; and Alternative "e", about 380 new
units. Although Alternative "0" is not explicitly evaluated in
the EIR, it is nearly identical to Alternative "B" and would
allow up to 470 new units.
There are many ways in which the recommended plan treats all of
Ocean Park as a unified area with common characteristics. All
districts would have the same side- and rear-yard setbacks, (with
the exception of OP-l single family), landscaping, private and
common open space, and lot coverage standards (these development
standards will be outlined below). Building heights would be
identical in the OP-Duplex, OP-2 and OP-3 districts, which
encompass the vast maj ori ty of Ocean Park. All districts are
subject to the same design guidelines, which emphasize major
historical themes in Ocean Park. Finally, all zones would
include a provision to allow porches to encroach into the front
yard setback.
The proposed development standards go beyond those originally
proposed by Ocean Park residents as well as those contained in
the interim ordinance in several ways:
o The staff-recommended plan requires common and private open
space, which should enhance both exterior design and makes
individual units more livable.
- 11 -
o The proposed plan creates an incentive for the inclusion of
front yard porches by allowing porches to encroach six feet into
the front yard setback. This should further help to reinforce
the traditional small-scale, intimate feeling that has existed
historically in Ocean Park.
o The plan creates a strong incentive for ensuring that primary
living space (e.g., living, dining, and family rooms) face either
the front or rear yard or a courtyard. This is intended to
prevent situations where large living room windows (or other
primary space windows) directly face one another, thus
compromising privacy.
o Recommended building heights are lower than those originally
proposed by the neighborhood group in 1987.
The proposed plan will successfully preserve the historically
low-scale, intimate character of Ocean Park, at the same time
preserving a greater share of the neighborhood's existing housing
stock.
RECOMMENDED ZONE DISTRICTS
As indicated, development standards for the five proposed zone
districts are very similar except for density. Described below
are the main purposes of each district as well as the differences
between districts.
o OP-l Single Family: 1 d.u.flat. Applies to the small, narrow
parcels (typically 25' X 80') with alleys along Ozone, Navy, and
- 12 -
Marine streets in the southeast corner of Ocean Park. Although
duplex units are allowed on these lots under interim zoning
standards, no projects proposed for development during the
interim period have been duplexes. Also, roughly 90% of the
existing parcels are developed with single family residences.
The rear yard setback and height requirements are less in this
district than the other districts.
o OP-Dup1ex: In a departure from the recommendations in the
draft Alternatives, and in response to public comment, staff
recommends that Copeland Court (please see maps, Exhibit E), one
of Ocean Park's three walk streets, be designated a duplex zone
rather than OP-2. This would effectively reduce the number of
allowable units on each parcel from 3 to 2 (most parcels are
approximately 145' X 40'), thus helping to preserve the unique
character of the street and minimize impacts on the alleys.
staff also received comments from the public that the other Walk
streets--Hollister Court and pica Place--should be designated as
duplex zones. with regards to pico Place, all lots are
substandard (ranging roughly between 2,300 and 2,600 square feet)
and would not be suitable for more than one unit. with regard to
Hollister Court, this is all one parcel; therefore, a duplex
designation would severely limit new development. staff believes
that the recommended OP-2 designation is more appropriate for
Hollister Court. In the end, perhaps the best means of
preserving the character of Hollister Court is through historic
preservation mechanisms.
- 13 -
o OP-2: 2000 SF/unit. This zone is intended to preserve
existing densities and allow limited new development in areas
where significant numbers of low-scale single-family and duplex
development exists. (Applicable development standards are
discussed in the next section of this report.)
o OP-3: 1500 SF/unit. At least 75% of existing parcels in this
zone are developed at a density of 1500 square feet per unit or
greater. The purpose of this zone district is to reduce
potential loss of existing housing stock. (Applicable
development standards are discussed in the next section.)
o OP-4: 1250 SF/unit. Applies to those areas which have been
zoned R-4 for many years and have been developed to, or beyond,
this density. The recommended building height in this zone (3
stories, 35' ) is higher than in the other zones: front yard
setbacks (15' or la' if average setback of adjacent parcels is
10' or less) are the same as the OP-l single family district and
less than the OP-Duplex, OP-2 and OP-3 zones. Other applicable
development standards are discussed in the next section.
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Since release of the Draft Ocean Park Alternative Rezoning
report, modifications to the propos~d development standards have
been made based upon comments from the public and Planning
commission. A matrix of all the standards, including the
proposed modifications, is provided in Exhibit H to this staff
report.
- 14 -
What follows is a discussion of the recommended development
standards. Discussion of each standard includes a description of
the original proposal, changes proposed in response to comments
by the public and Planning Commission, and the final
recommendation.
Front Yard Setbacks:
o Original Proposal: In the OP-l and OP-4 districts, IS', or 10'
if the average setback of adjacent buildings is 10' or less. In
the OP-2, OP-Duplex and OP-3 districts, 20', or 15' if the
setback of adjacent buildings is 15' or less. One-story porches
open on 3 sides may encroach 6 feet into the maximum front yard
setback if they do not exceed 14 feet in height and occupy more
than 40% of building frontage.
The purpose of these flexible setbacks is to respect the varying
setbacks that currently exist in Ocean Park. Setbacks tend to
vary more from block to block than between buildings on the same
block.
o Changes: None.
o Final Recommendation: Same as original proposal.
Rear Yard Setbacks:
o original Proposal:
consistent with rear
throughout the city.
15'
yard
in all proposed zones.
setbacks in existing
This is
R-districts
- 15 -
o Changes: Staff recommends a 10' rear yard setback for the
proposed OP-1 single-family district. In reviewing development
proposals for the parcels on Ozone, Navy, and Marine streets,
staff has found that a rear yard setback variance from 15' to 10'
is usually granted. This is in order to facilitate a
"tuck-under" configuration for tandem parking and provide
adequate living space on the first and second floors.
o Final Recommendation: 15'
OP-Duplex, OP-3, and OP-4 zones;
single family zone.
rear yard setback in OP-2,
10' setback requirements in OP-l
side Yard Setbacks:
o Original Proposal: Same as R-districts citywide, with the
additional requirement that primary windows (windows to living,
dining, family or similar rooms) be set back an additional 7'
from the sideyard. This is consistent with the 7' minimum
required dimension for pri va te open space. The purpose of the
additional setback for primary spaces is to prevent situations
where side-yard living room windows stare directly into the
adjacent building. The effect of this standard, particularly on
narrow lots, will be to encourage orientation of primary spaces
to front and rear yards and courtyards.
o Changes: After further analysis, staff recommends, and the
Planning Commission concurs, that five additional provisions are
necessary for the sideyard setback requirement. First, the
primary window (glazed surface) setback requirement on lots less
than 50' wide should be reduced to 8' (rather than 12'), provided
- 16 -
that a minimum distance of 12' exists between the proposed
primary window and the adjacent building (see Exhibit "R" for
illustration) .
Second, there should be a variance provision for the primary
window (glazed surface) setback requirement in cases where this
requirement would be extremely difficult to meet. The pertinent
ordinance language would read as follows:
Permit the modification of the side yard setback for primary
windows in the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 districts when the
imposition of the required setbback for more than are primary
space would severely constrain development on the proj ect,
and an alternative setback would still satisfy private
openspace standards, and maintain privacy for the occupants
of the project.
Third, in situations where the first floor is set back to comply
with the primary window (glazed surface)
requirement, we
recommend (with the Planning Commission's concurrence) that there
be a maximum second-story overhang of 2' within this required
side yard setback.
Fourth, as originally proposed, the plan required that sideyards
facing a street have a minimum setback of 101. However, after
examining the effects of this setback on narrow, corner lots (see
Exhibit R, Figures II and IV) we recommend that lots less than
501 wide exempt from this requirement and subject instead to the
sideyard setback required in effect in the R-districts Citywide.
Finally, sideyards facing the street on corner lots should be
exempted from the primary window setback requirement.
- 17 -
o Final Recommendation: Same as original proposal, with
additional provisions to reduce to the primary window setback
requirement on lots less than 50', to create a variance provision
for hardship cases, to require a 2' maximum second story overhang
where the first floor is setback for a primary window, to exempt
lots less than 50' wide from the 10' corner lot setback
requirement, and to exempt sideyards facing streets from the
primary space setback requirement.
Maximum. Heiqht:
o original Proposal: 2 stories or 20' with a flat roof and 27
feet with a pitched roof in the OP-I single family district; 2
stories or 23' with a flat roof and 30' with a pitched roof in
the OP-2, OF-Duplex and OP-3 districts; and, 3 stories or 35 feet
in the OP-4 district.
Also included in the proposed plan is a provision to require that
building roofs be stepped up on uphill lots and stepped down on
downhill lots to better conform to the natural topography in
Ocean Park (see Alternatives Report, page 1I-22).
Under the City's current zoning ordinance, the building height is
measured from the average natural grade. Average natural grade
represents an average of the elevations at each corner of the
parcel. As shown in Figure 5, measuring the height in this way
may render awkward configurations on sloped lots. For example,
on a lot that slopes down from the street (a "downhill lot"), the
front facade of the building lies low, while the back side looms
tall next to the adjacent parcel. On a lot that slopes upward
- 18 -
Figure 5
PROBLEMS WITH APPLICATION OF -AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE- TO
SLOPING LOTS IN OCEAN PARK
BLDG.
27 HIGH IN
BACK
/1:
23'
UMIT #
BLDG.
LOW IN
18' FRONT
20'
SETBACK ~... /'
CTDCCT
-.
--. ---. ..------- --.. ---.. --- .-...-.
. . .. ..
. II. . .1.. .
. .. II
EXAMPLE: DOWNHILL SLOPING LOT OP-2t OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT
26'
BLoG
HIGH IN
FRONT
23'
LlMlT
l J SLDG
18' LOW IN
BACK
15' '\J
.....J'sET~1
...1"1I>
- - --- -- . --.-.--
- .
. r .
..\~. ..... '.1 1.1.
. ..
EXAMPLE: UPHILL SLOPING lOT OP-2t OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT
from the street (an "uphill lot tt), the front facade looms over
the street frontage.
The method of measuring height contained in the proposed plan is
based upon theoretical grade. Theoretical grade is measured
along an imaginary line running between the midpoints of the
front and rear parcel lines. The maximum building height is
measured from any point along this line, so that the roof line
stays roughly consistent with the contours of the parcel. Figure
6 illustrates the effect of measuring height by theoretical
grade.
o Changes: After giving the matter considerable thought, staff
recommends applying the theoretical grade concept to all parcels
in Ocean Park, regardless of slope. The ordinance before the
Council reflects this change.
staff believes that the theoretical grade concept should be
applied to all parcels citywide. Upon direction from the City
Council, staff will present such a proposal separately to the
Planning commi.ssion for review and return to the City council
with a final recommendation to amend the Municipal Code.
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the proposed plan
(see Summary of ARB Comments, Exhibit J) and has expressed
concern that the height standards in the OP-l district, as well
as standards for pitched roofs in OP-l,-2, and -3 districts, are
too restrictive. However, we would like to stress that members
of the community were virtually unanimous in asking that building
heights be no more than two stories or 27'.
- 19 -
Figure 6
APPLICATION OF PROPOSED -THEORETICAL GRADE- FOR UPHILL
AND DOWNHILL LOTS
BUILDING STEP-BACK WITHIN
MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE
~
-~
16'
-~
- -
- -/ "-
23. ~ K
UMIT
. . .
. . .
.. .
. . . .
.
~7' 20'
· r' 20' "
I SETBACK /I '" /
.. .
.
C'Tnr-1I""I""
K'sE
'"
I
.. ... ~
EXAMPLE: OOWNHlLL LOT OP-2. OP-3 HEIGHT UMIT
BUILDING STEP-BACK WITHIN
MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE
~-
--
-
.
. r... . ..
-
1Q.f
23'
UMIT
J
.
. .
.. -..-1
EXAMPLE: UPHlLl LOT OP-21 OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT
The Planning Commission has requested the proposed ordinance
language state that when the building height for proj ects is
increased by 7', the roof be pitched on both sides, not just one.
This change has been incorporated into the proposed plan.
o Final Recommendation: Same as originally proposed, with the
additional requirements that, 1) where a pitched roof is required
that it be pitched on both sides, and 2) that the theoretical
grade concept be applied to all parcels in Ocean Park, regardless
of slope.
Usable Private/Common open space:
o Original Proposal: Common Open Space: 150 square feet/unit
for projects of 4 or more units; Private Open Space: 200 square
feet for project of 2 or 3 units, 150 square feet for projects of
4 or 5 units, and 100 square feet for projects of 6 units or
more. Also, second story units would require a minimum 75 square
foot deck towards private open space requirement, with one
dimension no less than 7 feet; minimum dimension of a at least
one ground or podium level private open space should be no less
than 7 feet.
o Changes: Obj actions were raised to the di fferent open space
requirements for projects with differing numbers of units. with
the Planning Comissions' s concurrence, staff recommends making
the open space requirements the same for all projects except in
projects of 8 units or more (see explanation below).
- 20 -
The Planning Commission also recommended that the rear yard be
allowed to count toward the common open space requirement, as
long as it is usable and accessible.
o Final Recommendation: Require 100 square feet of common open
space per unit up to a maximum requirement per proj ect of 600
square feet: and, 100 square feet of private open space per unit
for projects between 2 and 7 units and 50 feet for projects of 8
units or more. Reducing the private open space requirement for
projects of 8 units or more is necessary in order to preserve a
reasonable interior size of units in large projects on typical
parcels in Ocean Park (see Schematic Drawings, Exhibit K).
Under the proposed standards, second story units would each
require a minimum 50 square foot deck, with one dimension no less
than 7 feet: minimum dimensions of at least one ground or podium
level private open space should be not less than 7 feet.
Rear yards may count toward the common open space requirement
provided that they are usable and accessible.
Maximum Lot Coverage:
o Original Proposal: 40% lot coverage for lots 4,000 square feet
or less; 50% for lots 4,001 square or more; and, 60% for
affordable housing projects.
o Changes: After receiving comments on the 40% lot coverage
requirement for substandard lots (less than 4000 square feet)
originally proposed, staff has modified its recommendation as
indicated below. A 40% lot coverage standard for small lots
- 21 -
would make them less buildable than the current standards and
would likely result in increased variance applications.
o Final Recommendation: 50% lot coverage for all lots, and 60%
lot coverage for affordable housing projects. Sixty percent lot
coverage is necessary for affordable housing projects that take
advantage of a density bonuses in order to provide adequate
living space in each unit (see schematic Drawings, Exhibit K).
Density on Consolidated Lots:
o Original Proposal: In order to discourage lot consolidation,
the original proposal required a density of 2500 square feet per
unit on consolidated lots in the OP-2 district; 2000 square feet
per unit on consolidated lots in the OP-3 district; and, 900
square feet per unit on consolidated lots in the OP-4 district.
Most participants in the public workshops were strongly opposed
to lot consolidation. Generally they felt that development on
consolidated lots produced projects that were monotonous and out
of character with the neighborhood.
On the other hand, the standards encourage lot consolidation in
the OP-4 district. It is believed that, due to the large volume
of traffic along Pico Boulevard and Neilson Way where these
districts are located, lot consolidation would help to reduce
curb cuts, thereby also reducing traffic disruption on these
streets.
o Changes: The Planning Commission requested that housing
projects consisting of 100% affordable units be exempted from lot
- 22 -
consolidation penalty. At the same time, they requested that
when lots are consolidated for an affordable proj ects, special
attention be paid to the articulation of the front facade.
o Final Recommendation: Same as original recommendation, with an
exemption for projects consisting of 100% affordable units.
Density Bonuses:
o Original Proposal: within the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 districts,
projects which include units that are deed-restricted for low and
middle income households would receive a density bonus to
compensate for the effect of downzoning on per-unit land costs.
Proposed density bonuses in the OP-2 district are as follows:
o project of four or more units may receive a density bonus
of 75% when at least 50% of the units are for low income
households; or
o Projects of four or more units may receive a density bonus
of 50% when at least 25% of the units are for low income
households; or
o Project of three units may receive a bonus of one unit when
one unit is for a middle income household.
For the OP-3 and OP-4 districts, proposed density bonuses are as
- follows:
o Projects of four or more units may receive a density bonus
of 50% when at least 25% of the units are for low income
households;
- 23 -
o projects of three or four units may receive a bonus of one
unit when one unit is for a middle income household.
A density bonus for affordable housing would not be allowed in
the OP-4 district if a density bonus was already given for
consolidated lots.
It is important to note that, apart from density, projects that
take advantage of these bonuses will be subject to the same
development standards--heights, front, side, and rear setbacks,
and open space--as projects that do not receive a bonus.
However, in order to make them feasible on typical parcels in
Ocean Park, projects that provide deed-restricted affordable
units may also receive a lot coverage of 60% instead of 50%.
As the recently completed affordable housing proj ects in the
southeast corner of Ocean Park demonstrate, projects at densities
of 1250 and 1500 square feet of land area can be designed so that
they are small in scale and relate harmoniously to surrounding
development . Given current land costs in the Ocean Park area t
staff is convinced that these bonuses is necessary to make
affordable projects financially feasible.
o Changes: The Planning Commission requested that the language
of the density bonus provisions be clarified to state that all
bonus units be deed restricted for affordable housing, and that
the number of market rate units allowed on a project never be
reduced as a result of the density bonus.
- 24 -
o Final Recommendation: Same as original recommendation, with
the additional proviso that all bonus units be deed restricted,
and that there be no reduction in the number of market rate units
as a result of the density bonus.
other development standards are outlined in
standards matrix, Exhibit H, and discussed in
Park Rezoning Alternatives Report, Exhibit G.
the development
the Dra ft Ocean
60' Maximum Building Length:
o Original Proposal: In an effort to prevent the development of
long, unarticulated buildings, staff and the consultant
originally recommended that the there be a maximum building
length requirement of 60'.
o Changes: Staff has received several comments from the
community that this requirement is too restrictive. Upon further
consideration, we have concluded that this requirement is not
necessary. We believe that building massing can be adequately
addressed through open space and setback standards and
architectural design guidelines.
o Final Recommendation: Do not require maximum building length.
Building spacing:
o Original Proposal: The purpose of requiring minimum spacing
between buildings is to preserve privacy. The original proposal
called for a 25' separation between primary spaces in buildings
facing one another (unless separated by a wall of at least 5 feet
- 25 -
secondary space; and,
spaces or blank walls
in which case a minimum spacing of 15 feet
a 15' separation between a primary and
a 10' separation between two secondary
(see Rezoning Alternatives Report, page
6 inches in height,
would be required);
II-21) .
o Changes: None.
o Final Recommendation: Same as original proposal.
DEFINITIONS
The Planning commission asked for clarification
definitions of primary space and primary windows.
on the
The original plan defined a primary space as a IIliving room,
dining room, family room, or similar room. II The Planning
commission requested that the definition be expanded as follows:
"living room, dining room, family room, library or similar such
activity rooms. n The expanded definition is intended to
reinforce the notion that a primary space refers to a space of
common activity.
The Planning Commission encountered two problems with the
definition of a primary window. The original definition reads
as follows: "Window serving a primary space." The Commission
asked that it be clarified that the primary window must also be
the largest window of a primary space. The Commission also asked
that a primary window be defined as a "glazed surface" so that
the definition could encompass French and sliding glass doors.
The fOllowing revised definition resulted: "A glazed surface
- 26 -
whose area is larger than any other glazed surface area in a room
which serves as a primary space."
PERMITTED USES
The proposed plan generally allows the same uses in the OP-4
district as are currently allowed in the R-4 district. This
includes hotels as conditionally permitted uses. However, in
response to concerns expressed at the June 28th public hearing,
the Planning Commission recommended that hotels not be allowed as
conditionally permitted uses in the OP-4 zone. The revised plan
reflects this change.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
The proposed design guidelines are intended to help maintain and
continue the intimate, historic character of Ocean Park.
Described in Chapter IV of the Rezoning Alternatives Report,
these guidelines deal with two main issues: neighborhood
compatibility and project livability.
The guidelines relating to neighborhood compatibility encourage
that projects:
o Orient to the street
o Articulate facades
o Relate harmoniously to adjacent buildings
o Minimize garage exposure
o Respect historical architectural styles in Ocean Park
o Maintain continuity in streetscape quality
- 27 -
The guidelines relating to project livability generally encourage
that projects achieve the following:
o Provide step-backs to increase light
o Provide interior courtyards where feasible
o Provide I'eyes on the street" and create shared courts or
alcoves for security
o Make private and common open space accessible
o Create amenities in common open space for users
o Attempt to meet minimum landscaping requirements
o Use landscaping as buffer for privacy
OTHER ISSUES
Described below are several other features of the plan to which
the Planning Commission has recommended changes.
Performance Standards Permit to Preserve single Family Houses
Subchapter 6, Section 9050.15 of the proposed implementing Zoning
ordinance for the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan includes a provision
to allow, by use of an administratively approved Performance
Standards permit, variations to rear lot development standards
(such as side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, building
spacing, and parking--see page III - 25 of draft Alternative
Report) in the OP-2 and OP-3 zones on parcels where a single
family house occupies the front portion of the parcel and where
it is desired that the single family house be preserved.
However, the Planning Commission expressed concern about
approving such variations administratively. Accordingly, staff
- 28 -
has proposed an alternative method, called a Yard Modification
Permit.
Similar to a variance, a Yard Modification Permit
would be subject to a public hearing by the zoning Administrator.
The standards defined in Section 9050.15 of the proposed plan
would guide the Zoning Administration's decision. The Planning
Commission approved the concept of a yard Modification Permit,
which is now reflected in the proposed plan.
Zoning Administrator Approval of single Family Homes
Section 9048.1 of the originally proposed ordinance language
required Zoning Administrator approval of the demolition of
single-family homes.
Concerned that this would place too much
discretion in the hands of the zoning Administrator, the
commission recommended that the City instead rely upon existing
historic preservation mechanisms to preserve significant single
family structures.
The proposed ordinance has been revised to
reflect this (Section 9048.1 has been deleted).
MOdifications/Additions to Design Guidelines
The Planning Commission approved the following changes to the
proposed guidelines:
1) That the section of the Design Guidelines under Architectural
Compatibility, Orientation of the street, be modified as follows
in order to encourage individual entries for mUlti-family units:
"Orient units to the street that are along the street
frontage of the project. This means individual or collec~ive
front door entries, and primary living spaces such as the
living room or family room should face the street. Where
feasible, private entries for each individual unit shoulc be
provided, and visually penetrable gates and archways tJ~Dt
- 29 -
provide ceremonial access to individual entrances are
encouraged. It
2) That the section concerning Streetscape Quality be modified
to include a new section entitled It Decorated Driveways" , to
include the following language:
Driveways decorated with grasscrete, tile or other decorative
surfaces are encouraged.
Modification to section 9040.17, Unexcavated Area in side Yards
section 9040.17 of the originally proposed plan exempts lots
less than 40 t wide from the sideyard setback requirement for
subterranean parking.
This is inconsistent with the Citywide
standard which exempts lots up to less than 50'.
This was an
oversight. The language should read as follows:
On any parcel in the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 Districts having a
width of less than 50 feet, and developed with at least three
uni ts, no sideyard setback for subterranean or
semi-subterranean parking structures or basements is
required. . .
Protecting Privacy of Neighboring Units Adjacent to Roof Decks
Some commissioners expressed concern that, unless properly
designed, roofdecks could compromise privacy for neighboring
units.
To address this, staff recommended, and the commission
approved, requiring that the handrail surrounding a roof deck be
set back from the sideyard a minimum distance of 8'. Assuming
the deck itself comes up to the edge of a typical 5' sideyard
setback, this would effectively mean that the handrail is set
back an additional 3' from the edge of the deck. This change has
been incorporated into the ordinance.
- 30 -
Grading Permit Requirement
To prevent grading of sloped parcels prior to construction or
submission of a development applicaton, staff recommends
requiring a grading permit. Upon City council direction, staff
will return to the City Council with a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Code to require a grading permit.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ALTERNATIVES
The city received numerous letters from the community on the
Draft Alternatives, all of which are attached in Exhibit L.
(Additional letters regarding the Environmental Impact Report are
are contained in Exhibit M. Responses to these comments are
contained in the Final EIR.
A summary of comments on the alternatives, along with responses
by staff, are provided below. Staff recommended, and the
Commission approved, several changes to the Draft Plan based upon
these comments.
o 60' Maximum Bui1ding Length: As indicated, staff received
comments that the setback, open space, and lot coverage
requirements were sufficient to produce adequate building
articulation and compatibility between buildings and that the
limit of 60' on building length was too rigid. Therefore, the
maximum building length requirement has been eliminated.
o pri vate and Common Open Space Requirements:
comments that the open space requirements were
enough, that required common open space might
staff received
not flexible
become "dead
- 31 -
space", and that diminished open space requirements for projects
with more units was unfair.
As indicated previously, staff has recommended changes to the
private and common open space requirements to make the
requirements uniform for all proj ects, except those over eight
units, and to allow for tradeoffs between private and common open
space.
o Density standards for Walk streets: Some comments indicated
that, because of their unique character and limited access, the
walk streets should be zoned to duplex. While staff does not
believe that pico Place and Hollister are suitable for a duplex
zone (see pages 13 and 14), we do believe that, because of its
unique conditions of access and its unusual character, Copeland
court should be zoned duplex. This has been reflected in
Alternative "D".
o Density standards for small lots in southeast corner of Ocean
Park: The city received some requests to consider allowing
duplexes on the small lots in the southeast corner of Ocean Park
between Marine street on the north, the City boundary on the
south, Lincoln on the east, and Highland on the west. However,
staff does not believe this is appropriate. Most of these lots
measure 25' by 80', or about 2000 square feet. With the proposed
setback and height requirements, this would allow at most 2000
square feet of total floor area, at least 450 square feet of
which must be dedicated to a garage. Thus, duplex units would be
problematic to build on these lots. The fact that no duplex
- 32 -
proj ects have been proposed for the area during the interim
zoning period speaks to the difficulty of trying to build
duplexes on these lots. Another important reason for
single-family zoning is to maintain the existing character of the
area, roughly 90% of which is currently built as single fam.ily
dwellings.
o uniform vs. varied densities: Several individuals have
commented that downzoning in Ocean Park should be uniform--that
is, that there should be only one zone district. The purpose of
uniform zoning would be to recognize Ocean Park as a single,
unified community.
As indicated previously, the opinions expressed in the public
workshops were not unanimous on the issues of zone district.
Some participants favored a single zone district, while others
favored two or more.
Furthermore, staff believes that the arguments for creating
separate districts are sound. To summarize them: 1) The duplex
zone for the Copeland Court walk street responds to the
accessibility limitations of this street while helping to
preserve its unique character; 2) The single-family zone for the
southeast corner of Ocean Park takes into account the small lots
and predominantly single-family character that exists in this
area; 3) The OP-3 designation has been applied to an area that is
already at least 75% built out to a density of 1500 square feet
per unit. Therefore, this designation would help prevent a loss
of housing that might otherwise result if existing buildings had
- 33 -
to recycle to the lower OP-2 density; and, 4) Existing
development in the proposed OP-4 zone is already built out to a
density of at least 1250 square feet per unit, and in most cases
(i.e., Sea Colony, ocean Towers) to higher densities than this.
The streets adjacent to these areas, Neilson Way and pico
Boulevard, are 4-lane streets and therefore able to accommodate
the traffic associated with higher densities.
Finally, the effective visual difference between the various
proposed multi-family zones will be negligible because almost all
other standards--most setbacks, private and common open space,
lot coverage, most heights--will be identical.
o OP-3 district boundaries: One letter pointed out that, under
the criteria used by staff, the area on the east side of Third
street between Hill and the southern ci ty boundary should be
included in the OP-3 district. After reviewing existing and
approved development for this area, staff agreed with the comment
and has recommended that the area be included in the OP-3
district, as shown in Alternative "0".
staff also received comments that due to the fact that there were
clusters of low-scale, single-story units on Fifth and Sixth
streets just south of Ocean Park Boulevard and on Raymond just
east of Fourth street, this area should be designated OP-2.
staff reviewed development in this area and concluded that that
the effective net difference in potential new development between
the OP-2 and OP-3 designation in this area is 7 units. since 5
of these new units would be located along the east side of sixth
- 34 -
street, this side of the street has been removed from the OP-3
district, as reflected in Alternatives "B" and liD". Leaving the
remainder of the area in the OP-3 district would reduce the
potential loss of housing that would result from recycling.
o Effect of downzoning on housing for families: Some concerns
were expressed that the standards proposed for Ocean Park would
discriminate against housing for families. For a response to
this comment, see the EIR Response to comments.
o Consolidated Lots: Some letter-writers objected to
discouraging consolidated lots. As an alternative to requiring a
reduction in density on consolidated lots, they proposed
developing special development standards for consolidated lots,
or allowing lot consolidation in order to encourage preservation
of single-family housing.
However, at the public workshops, very strong sentiment was
expressed against lot consolidation. The opinion of much of the
community was that development on consolidated lots often results
in elongated, unarticulated building facades that offer no
interest at the street level. Staff concurs with this opinion
and believes that it would be difficult to produce development on
consolidated lots that possesses the low-scale, intimate feeling
that this plan is trying to promote.
o specificity of standards: A couple of people indicated that
they thought that the proposed development standards were too
rigid. One person suggested the use of development guidelines,
or performance standards, rather than strict numerical standards.
- 35 -
....
Most of the proposed development standards reflect consensus that
came out of the public workshops. In addition, staff believes
that specific standards will result in greater consistency in the
development review process.
o Theoretical Grade vs. Average Natural Grade: Some have
indicated that the definition of theoretical grade is problematic
because lot contours can be easily altered. They suggested
instead that the same definition that is currently prescribed in
the Zoning Ordinance--average natural grade--be applied.
However, many areas of Ocean Park are different from the rest of
the City in that there are hills, with the result that lots slope
down or up from the street. As already discussed on pages 19 and
20, the theoretical grade definition would result in a
stair-stepped configuration on such parcels, while the City's
existing average natural grade definition would allow a flat roof
configuration that ignores natural contours. Staff feels that a
stair-stepped configuration would cause less obstruction of views
and result in rooflines that better conform to natural contours.
In response to concerns about al tering the grade of parcels,
staff recommends requiring a permit for all grading.
o Incentives tor preservation of single-family houses: There
were some objections to the proposed performance standards that
would allow modifications to rear lot development standards in
order to preserve existing single-family houses at the front of a
lot. The main concern is that such modifications could cramp
neighboring development.
- 36 -
staff believes the preservation of existing single-family houses
is important enough to justify the tradeoffs in rear lot
development standards. (As indicated, the performance standard
concept has been substituted with the proposed Yard Modification
Permit.) There are clear provisions in the standards associated
with the proposed Yard Modification Permit to ensure the adjacent
developments are protected and that flsuch variances do not create
adverse impacts upon adjacent properties" (see page III-25).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45-day
public review period that ended on May 19, 1989. written
comments on the ErR are attached in Exhibit M. The Response to
Comments are provided in the Final EIR, included with this staff
report.
The Environmental Impact Report and Neighborhood Impact statement
on the Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives identifies three
significant environmental impacts: air quality, housing (need),
and transportation/circulation.
o Air Quality: According to the EIR, the individual impacts of
the proposed project upon air quality are not significant. The
individual impacts of Alternative "B"--which is essentially the
same as the recommended plan--upon total organic gases, carbon
monoxide and oxides of nitrogen are below significant levels.
None of the other alternatives outlined in
would have individually significant air
this staff report
quality impacts.
- 37 -
However, the EIR also analyzed the air quality effects of
existing and interim zoning. The individual impacts of these
alternatives would be significant with respect to total organic
gases and oxides of nitrogen.
The cumulative impacts of this and other projects approved for
the vicinity are significant for all three categories of
pollutants (see ErR, page V-68).
Mitigation for these significant impacts could include traffic
demand management--carpooling, mass transit, etc. This
mitigation is optional.
o Housing: The EIR identifies as significant the impacts of
reduced densities in Ocean Park upon the city's ability to meet
its "fair share" of the regional housing need. The June, 1988
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) projected that an
additional 3,220 units are need in Santa Monica by 1994. The
recommended plan could potentially produce approximately 480 new
units, compared to underlying zoning which could allow roughly
1250 new units.
suggested mitigation measures include rezoning commercial
districts in the city to allow mixed use development and
targeting selected residential sites in the City for increased
densities.
o Transportation/circulation: The ErR analyzed the traffic and
circulation impacts of the alternatives by themselves and
together with the cumulative impacts of 72 other projects
- 38 -
proposed for the city of Santa Monica and 15 for the City of Los
Angeles. The analysis concludes that while cumulative projects
produce significant traffic impacts, the the individual
alternatives do not.
The Final Environmental Impact Report bases the analysis of the
impacts of Alternative "B"--the plan recommended by staff--upon
erroneous buildout data. A revised analysis based upon
up-to-date data is provided on pages X-1.3 through X-16 of the
Final EIR Response to Comments.
The revised
Alternative
analysis
"B" has
shows
little
that the individual
serious impact on
minor. The maximum
impacts of
intersection
increase in
capaci ties in Ocean Park are
VOlume-to-Capacity (Vie) ratio at any intersection is 0.04. By
the City's own standards, if the VOlume-to-capacity ratio at an
intersection already at Level of Service (LOS) E or F increases
by more than .02, the project impact on that intersection is
considered to be significant. Using this criteria, the
recommended plan would have a significant impact upon eight
intersections in Ocean Park (see EIR, page V-44).
However, the analysis indicates that these significant impacts
can be effectively mitigated at 7 of the 8 intersections street
by specific street widenings and restriping. The Fourth
Street/Ocean Park intersection is the only one that could not be
successfully mitigated.
In reviewing these proposed mitigations, staff discovered that
the EIR language regarding the proposed mitigations at the
- 39 -
intersection of Fourth street and pico Boulevard was unclear (see
Exhibit S). The language should read as follows:
The Fourth street/Pico Boulevard intersection would be
mitigated with protected double left lanes at the eastbound
approach and restriping of the southbound approach to two
through lanes and a left-turn lane.
The City's Parking and Traffic Engineer has determined that all
mi tigations are feasible.
However, only one of the mitigation
measures is currently planned--a double-left-turn lane on the
eastbound approach of pico Boulevard at Lincoln Boulevard.
The Planning commission requested that all of the proposed
traffic mitigations be implemented as soon as possible. However,
in staff's opinion, these mitigations should not be implemented
until they have been evaluated in the context of the citywide
traffic study.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Should the traffic mitigations be implemented, there is a
potential for fiscal impacts upon the city. The City's Traffic
Engineer will review these mitigations in the context of the
citywide Traffic study.
If a proposal to implement the
mitigations is made, a funding request will be brought to the
city council for review and approval.
- 40 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city Council:
1. Open the public hearing and hear from all members of the
public.
2. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final draft Environmental
Impact Report (see Exhibit T).
3. Approve for first reading the attached language to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to implement the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan (see
Exhibit N) .
4. Approve for first reading the attached revisions to the
Interim Districting Map (see Exhibit 0).
5. Direct staff to amend the Municipal Code to require grading
permits.
6. Direct the Planning Commission to review revisions to the
definition of building height and average natural grade to
establish citywide consistency with the theoretical grade concept
proposed for Ocean Park.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
John Read, Associate Planner
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - February 9, 1987 letter and proposed zoning changes
submitted by Ocean Park residents to Planning
Director and Planning Commission
- 41 -
Exhibit B - July 7, 1987 Planning commission staff report re
Ocean Park zoning
Exhibit C - Ocean Park Interim Zoning Ordinance, September 8,
1987
Exhibit o - Transcript of July 7, 1987 city council hearing
Exhibit E - summary of Interim ordinance standards, with maps
Exhibit F1- Summary of public workshops held in May, August, and
October, 1988
Exhibit F2- Ocean Park Issues and Existing Conditions Report,
July 1988
Exhibit G - Ocean Park Neighborhood Rezoning Alternatives, April,
1989
Exhibit H - Matrix of Development Standards, revised 9/12/89
Exhibit J - SlJ1n1l1ary of comments by Architectural Review Board,
June 5, 1989
Exhibit K - Schematic drawings illustrating effect of open,
space, lot coverage standards and density bonuses on
a range of typical lot sizes in Ocean Park
Exhibit L - Letters from public regarding Rezoning Alternatives
Exhibit M - Letters from public regarding Draft EIR and
Neighborhood Impact statement
Exhibit N - Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to implement
the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan
Exhibit 0 - Ordinance to amend the Interim Districting Map to
implement the proposed Ocean Park Zone Districts
Exhibit P - June 28, 1989 Planning Commission staff Report
Exhibit Q - July 12, 1989 planning commission staff Report
Exhibit R - Schematic drawings shwoing effects of property
development standards on small lots
-Exhibit S - Excerpt from Final EIR (pages X-16) concerning
mitigation for the recommended alternative
Exhibit T - City Council Resolution to Certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the Ocean Park
Rezoning Plan
w/opccrptl
- 42 -
q/~q
Exhiblt T
RESOLUTION NO. 7907(CCS)
(City council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL)
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE OCEAN PARK REZONING PLAN
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report was issued in September, 1988: and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in April, 1989, in cOMpliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the city of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines: and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was made
available for a 45-day public review period beginning on April 1,
1989: and
WHEREAS, in June, 1989, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 1989, the city council, as Lead
City Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The city Council has reviewed and considered the
,~
Final Environmental Impact Report on the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan
prior to acting on the project.
- 1 -
:..
..-
SECTION
2.
The
city
council
certifies
that
the
environmental review for the project was conducted in full
compliance with State and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was
adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
that it has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report and responses to comments, that the Final
Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant
environmental issues, and that the City council has considered
the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in its
decision-making process.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~.n-..~1
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
w/opres
- 2 -
-' .
Adopted and approved this 19th day of September, 1989.
DQ..-y / \~~
MJor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 7907(CCS)
was duly adopted by the city Council of the city of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on September 19, 1989 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Jennings,
Mayor Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: Reed
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: Katz
ATTEST:
~Jd
' ,
'(~.'. --'
~()~ .'
~ City CIe
..
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTEKT OF fi~~ i0rt ~~~L
CounC1.1 Meetlng
RESOLUTION # 7f D '7
Da te ?7t /11
J-~g
No
ORDINANCE #=
DISTRIBUTION OF
Introduced:
Adopted:
ALWAYS PUBLISH ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Cross out Attorney's approval
Agenda Item #
Was it amended?
VOTE: Aff~rmative: /f6eJt:> / /7,;&_--./ tb'~s-e:,c /...TIltWn-,,;"t;..s! ':;~E....
Negat1ve: ~,~~
Absta1.n:
Absent: ,~~ TL_ -
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to he s1gned, sealed and flIed 1.n Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: )
Department originating staff report( Laurie Lieberman)
Ordinances only for Attorney ( Claudia Thompson) 2
Management Services Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY 1
Agency ment1.oned in document or staff report
(certifled?)
SubJect f11e (agenda packet) 1
Counter file 1
Others: (Rev1ew
A1rport
Aud1tor1um
for departments'who need to know).
Park1.ng Auth.
Personnel
BU1.1d1ng Dept.
C/ED
Planning
Pol~ce
Purchaslng
Recr/Parks
Transportat1on
Treasurer
I
Finance
General Servo
Library
Manager
F1re
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
CODED SYSTEMS
120 Ma1n Street
Avon, New Jersey 07717
4
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO: 4
Debra Myr!lik
Santa Monica Mun1c1pal Court
1725 Ma1n Street, Room 118
Santa Monica, CA 90401 Total Caples
3
"'-
-~--.._-~-